Thursday, December 31, 2015

Now You Can Buy A Vintage Shelby Mustang With A Twin-Turbo V6

BOLD RIDE

Copyright © 2015 Bold Ride LLC.
 
carroll-shelby-continuation-ecoboost-1e

Let’s face it. Back in the muscle car heyday, big engines were the business. Few would look down their nose at Chrysler’s gargantuan 427ci Hemi, and the same can be said about the seven-liter brutes that lived beneath the Shelby GT500. There’s surely no replacement for displacement, but this modern Shelby remake may have you questioning those values. 

Admittedly, it’s just a render, but this crisp pony car brings news that twin-turbochargers are coming to the Shelby continuation model line. And that’s a good thing.

Oklahoma’s Classic Restorations, which has licensed production of Shelby GT continuation models, has announced it will offer Ford’s punchy 3.5-liter twin-turbo EcoBoost V6 in 1966 GT350CR and ’67 GT500CR models, to complement its array of Coyote and Windsor engines.

As standard, the V6 leaves the Ford assembly plant with 365 horsepower and 420 lb-ft of torque, and likewise finds a home beneath modern Ford F-150s and Expeditions. Classic Restorations on the other hand say they can add larger turbochargers and retune the engines to reliably produce 600 horsepower in their go-fast Shelby Mustangs. “Enough” for most tastes.

ford-f150-ecoboost-v6-3e

The combination of good power, flat torque curve, light weight, and heightened fuel efficiency were all noted to be reasons for offering the turbo sixes in the lineup. And they won’t be the only EcoBoost mills getting shoehorned into continuation Shelbys.
Due to stringent regulations and taxes on higher displacement engines, the firm will equip its Chinese market cars with 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder engines, which normally call the Ford Focus ST home. An ECU tune among other fettling raises power to an even 300 horsepower and 360 lb-ft of twist.

That said, not everyone likes the taste of “turbo,” but with outputs like these in classic Shelby Mustang bodies…it’s hard to make the “displacement” argument.


 

No comments:

Post a Comment